1.) Any modern war in which Air Power can not play a decisive role is probably a war with dubious goals.

2.) What we call 'counter-insurgency' is either an intelligence & police operation or an exercise in futility.

3.) Taking sides in someone else's insurrection requires native-speaking cadre or an urge to waste yourself.

4.) Gung-ho, Hooah, Boots-on-the-ground, or fighting-to-fight requires low casualty rates {about 2% max} to continue for any length of time; it sharpens the blade as it eventually fatigues the metal.

Basic Points:

1. Wars on foreign soil are either quick and brutal or colonialist to the locals.

2. Use of Special Forces, (Paratroops, Marines, Rangers, etc.) are often used as expendable forces when a nation or society is uncertain about committing to the use of force.

3. Why fight asymmetric wars in a linear fashion?

4. Winning armies in conventional conflicts are those with the superior tactics, training, technology, intelligence and logistics.

5. Winning armies in non-conventional wars are those with superior motivation.

6. The 'mission:' --If friendly-forces are all potential targets and tactical goals are either hard to formulate or defensive in nature; and strategic goals are 'glittering generalities' (translating to a hopeful they will eventually like us or become like us) and is fairly divorced from any way to achieve it, the 'mission' will fail.

7. The two ways of conquering enemies or 'insurgents' on foreign soil; and the suggestion of a third way.

Death by drowning, vehicle-collision, murder, suicide, accidental self-destruction, aircraft crash, heart-attack, embolism, illness, fall, non-hostile gunshot, other.